Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
Thanks for you post. I'm going to assume that's a vote against climate as a stand alone section.
Your ASSUMPTION here could not be further from thee Truth of things.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
My opinion excluded - that's one for/one against. I posted this proposal first in my thread in General Philosophy, entitled "Solving Climate Change" and Belinda thinks it's a good idea. So - one all; and if this were a democracy, that would mean something! It's not - and it doesn't, but gives an indication of the popular mood.
What are you on about?
I have NEVER even suggested that your idea was not a good idea, let alone said it. I have just INFORMED you that your idea will NEVER 'solve climate change', and I explained the reasons WHY. You have just refused to LOOK AT that.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
"How are the two related? Does everything added by all media outlets 'have to be' added to philosophy discussions, or only some media outlets?"
Is this one question, or two?
Let us take a LOOK, and SEE.
There are two sentences with two questions marks. So, what this tells most people is that that is TWO questions.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
Are you asking how science and climate change are related? Or are you asking how the fact BBC News added a climate section relates to my suggestion we do the same thing here?
No, to your first question.
Yes, to your second question.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
"What would you propose is even 'significant', and why?"
Again. I'm at a loss. Are you asking what the word significant means?
NO. If I was, then I would ask a question, like; 'What does the word 'significant' mean, to you?'
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
"The corona virus is NOT even close to being an existential issue to the majority and to the majority of those who do not get vaccinated nor wear a mask. To suggest that it is an existential issue is to say that the flu is an existential issue also."
That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. Did you accidentally repeat the words "to the majority?"
NO.
What part does not seem to make any sense, to you?
When, and if, you inform us of this, then we can make that sentence make sense to you.
The majority, of ALL human beings, can be a vastly different number than the majority of human beings who do not get vaccinated is, and they are two separate different groups of human beings. So, to distinguish between the two different numbers, and groups, of human beings is why I wrote that sentence, that way.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
"'climate change' is NOT an existential issue in the way you are portraying it here."
Phew! And there was I - really worried for nothing!
But you are still worried, correct?
If yes, then 'climate change' is still NOT an existential issue in the way that you are portraying it to be here.
But if no, then 'climate change' is still NOT an existential issue in the way that you are portraying it to be here.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
"And, claiming that " climate change is an existential issue, which is going to be a subject 'forever' " is a self-contradictory term."
Your logic is irrefutable!
"'science' thrives on issues like the climate change issue."
I blame book lernin, communists, and faggots!
Okay.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
"'economics', or chasing after more money, is the cause of why the climate is warming due to human beings."
either that or it's all a chinese hoax, or it's the sun, or it's not happening at all, or the climate is always changing, or anything other than fossil fuels!
Well the cause of human made 'climate change' is NONE of what you suggested here. So, we are back to human beings love of money (greed) is the cause of human made 'climate change'.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:59 am
"'politics' speaks for itself."
Rather than for those it purports to represent? First thing you've said that's made sense!
But you said previously that my 'logic is irrefutable!', in regards to one other thing I said previously, which would mean that that other previous thing would have made sense to you as well, correct?
If this is correct, then this last sentence of yours does not make sense or it is just incorrect.
Or, when you wrote, "your logic is irrefutable?" did you really not mean it?